Proposed change to e-NABLE's Loomio voting process
We've noticed a potential shortcoming in our current voting process. In a recent proposal from Nate Munro, several people commented that they would like to see some changes in the proposal. But since others had already voted, Nate was hesitant to make changes to what was being proposed.
Loomio makes it easy to start a discussion thread (like this one, for example) and then later add a proposal to that thread to allow voting to take place.
We are proposing that moving forward, all new funding requests start with a discussion thread, which would run for at least one week. Only after that discussion has taken place would the proposal be added to allow voting to commence.
In keeping with this proposed approach, I'll leave this discussion thread open for a week before starting a vote.
Please share your thoughts and comments below.
Michael Bowman Sun 6 Sep 2020 3:56PM
Thank you @Jon Schull for the explanation. Ready to get this passed!
Jon Schull · Sat 5 Sep 2020 8:27PM
@Michael Bowman, examples where expediting might be desirable might include travel funds for a near-term a speaking engagement, or a rubber-stamping of a proposed targeted donation to a well-known chapter (as happened once with e-NABLE Sierra Leone) that we didn't want to have slip away.
But the exceptions should be rare and only requested when really necessary and important.
Similarly, while the proposal does not currently REQUIRE a presentation to SPC (something that @Everton Lins advocates, and I could be persuaded is critical), a presentation is "encouraged" and SPC will discuss ripe proposals even if there is no presentation. I think declining to present should be considered a red flag and in many cases a good reason to vote against a proposal that has not been fully vetted.